Re: add a rudder to a kayak?

in article nih8zismnosd.uj56381dkyqd.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, RkyMtnHootOwl at
rkymtnhoothoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/4/05 6:07 PM:

> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:50:28 -0500, KMAN wrote:
>
>> in article 1uyzleehd27pz$.ft00ys7ap6rp$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, RkyMtnHootOwl at
>> rkymtnhoothoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/4/05 3:37 PM:
>>
> snip
>>
>> A thread is a thread. It is neither on-topic nor off-topic. The posts in the
>> thread can be either on-topic or off-topic and (subjectively speaking)
>> significant or insignificant.
>
> As they usually are!
>
>>
>> Do you mean to say I haven't made any posts relevant to the topic of the
>> thread? Go back and read the thread. I've already posted extensively with my
>> views on kayaks and rudders.
>
> I have never questioned that you posted extensively! In fact I
> attempted to determine and establish the basis in experience of your
> postings to this NG, so that I/we could better understand and
> appreciate your postings. I realize that as a non-entity Usenet
> identity, that you may be associated with known personalities (K&J).
> If you do not desire that association to be made, that is your choice,
> and for your respected reasons. But understand the charade is quite
> thinly veiled, and I believe apparent to most.

Whatever you are flapping off about now, it most assuredly has nothing to do
with the thread, which is supposedly your primary concern.

<snip blather>

> Kman seems to be much more of a Usenet rebel, whose input is suspect,
> and without the quality of real life experience. He makes me think of
> a Usenet ghost, that just pops in and out of a NG, with his quips, and
> then fades away! No real commitment to the health of the group, or the
> current discussion. Some would call it trolling!

I have a long established internet presence, but leaving that point aside,
whether or not I post as George Bush or KMAN, the veracity of my statements
may be judged in equal fashion according to their content.

>> You've babbled on about using air conditioning in a car and other
>> non-analogous ramblings.
>
> Some insist that the use of autotrans saves gas, and yet use the AC
> which can use up to 1/4 of the available Hp. hence "wasting gas" for
> their comfort and convienence. A rudder may not be as efficient as
> just leaning into a turn, but is more convienent, especially with
> beamy boats like my Folbot Super and Klepper AEII.

Sounds like your boat just doesn't work very well :-/

> So saving gas is not so much the issue as comfort and convienence, and
> the macho illusion of using a standard transmission.

Macho illusion? You mean there's no women that prefer driving standard? Heh.
I know quite a few.

> Having driven
> over the road trucks with standard trans with up to 21 gears, that is
> a lot of work, and those boys are going to autotrans as much as
> possible these days. Most folks do not take full advantage of the gear
> selection options of a standard transmission. Even professional race
> car drivers miss a shift at times, so are also using autotrans.

What the hell sort of race car uses an automatic transmission!?!? Good
grief, pretty soon there won't be any drivers!

> Now I would also admit that driving a sporty little convertible with a
> 5 speed standard, in the mountain roads, is a heck of a lot of fun!
> For the same reason paddling a responsive kayak in waves is a blast.
> The use of a rudder becomes inconsequential. Just let me paddle!

Uh. Who is stopping you?

>> If you have a specific question regarding kayaks and rudders, please feel
>> free to pose it.
>
> If I pose a specific question, can I expect you to pose a specific,
> and non inflamatory reponse?

Probably. It depends, I would suppose, on the question and how pose it. Try
to ask it without being an ***, if you are concerned about the
politeness of the response.

> And again, what would the basis of your
> experience be to answer such a question? In other words, do you really
> know what you are talking about, or are you just a - Poser?

I'll be sure to adequately reference my statements for you.

> I think that was the jist of the question that was ask earlier in the
> thread by someone else, and a question you did not choose to answer!
> Would you care to answer it now? RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

I have no idea what you are talking about. But as stated, if you wish to ask
a question that relates to the title of the thread, just ask it. Your
incessant off-topic blather is not necessary.

> I have been thinking of another ditty!
>
> "Give a hoot, don't polloot the NG" OvO

I have to ask, are you an adult? I've just realized you might well be a
child in grade school and I've been a little harsh with you!

.

Loading